Information science reviewers versus the open peer review

Abstract

The evaluation of originals by peers is the best way of ensuring the science quality. Therefore, it is essential to analyze the evaluative system that is currently outlined: The open peer review. It is the macro objective of the paper to evaluate the feasibility of adopting open evaluation in the sphere of reviewers in the area of information science. The specific objectives are to analyze the perspective of future use of open peer review in the information science journals classified by the Qualis system of the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior; to evaluate the knowledge of the open peer review from the viewpoint of the reviewers; to identify the (dis)advantages that scientific journals evaluators perceive regarding the open peer review. The research method (qualitative-quantitative research) is the survey. The research population includes reviewers of all 34 information science journals with concept A and B attributed by this Coordenação, reaching a sample of 189 out of the total of 709 reviewers (26.6%). The data were collected through electronic questionnaires sent to the sample units. Among the results, it is remarkable that most (137 or 72.4%) of the reviewers are willing to adopt open review, although they recognize that, like any other arbitration system, it has its advantages and disadvantages.